P2Y12 Inhibitors versus Aspirin Monotherapy for Long-term Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) need long-term antiplatelet therapy to decrease the risk of future ASCVD events. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through September 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating P2Y12 inhibitors vs aspirin for secondary prevention of ASCVD events. Seven RCTs including a total of 56,982 patients were included in this analysis. The median follow-up duration was 22.8 (IQR 12) months. When P2Y12 inhibitors were compared with aspirin as long-term antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of ASCVD events, there was a significant decrease in the risk of myocardial infarction [RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94], and stroke [RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83-0.99]. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.92-1.12], or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.83-1.08] between P2Y12 inhibitors and aspirin users. Additionally, there was no significant difference in major bleeding events [RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.74-1.04], or all bleeding events [RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33] between P2Y12 inhibitors and aspirin groups. Use of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction and stroke in ASCVD patients without any significant difference in mortality, or bleeding compared to aspirin monotherapy.

Impact of Adjuvant Use of Midodrine to Intravenous Vasopressors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of midodrine use in intensive care units (ICU) to facilitate weaning off intravenous vasopressors (IVV). METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar (inception through October 18th, 2020) for studies evaluating adjuvant use of midodrine to IVV in the ICU. The outcomes of interest were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, IVV reinstitution, ICU readmission, and bradycardia. Estimates were pooled using the random-effects model. We reported effect sizes as standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for other outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were found that met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for our quantitative analysis (1 randomized controlled trial and 5 retrospective studies). A total of 2,857 patients were included: 600 in the midodrine group and 2,257 patients in the control group. Midodrine use was not associated with a significant difference in ICU LOS (SMD 0.16 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.55), hospital LOS (SMD 0.03 days; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.0.39), mortality (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.46), IVV reinstitution (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.3), or ICU readmission (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.49) when compared to using only IVV. However, there were higher trends of bradycardia with midodrine use that did not reach significance (RR 7.64; 95% CI 0.23 to 256.42). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that midodrine was not associated with a significant decrease in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, mortality, or ICU readmissions.